Talk:Southern Europe/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Corsica and other places

Is Corsica part of Southern Europe? It isn't mentioned in the article even though it's highlighted on the map. ShadowDragon 01:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must have highlighted that accidentally. Anyway, the article, as it is, is not particularly useful, this definition is rather narrow, imprecise, and there is no historic overview. --Shallot 10:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course that corsica is in southern Europe !!

Milan, in northen Italy is considered in south Europe while Corsica, wich is situated 300 kilometer more in the south of that city, in the middle of the mediteranen sea is not ??!! It is the same of south half of France, wich is as mediterranean as Italy... Even more than some italian regions: is italian tyrol in south europe ? in this region people speak a kind of german and look like to Austrians !...

This definition of south Europe is too much unprecise...

If we refer to latin cultures as "south european", all France should be included, even the northen part. There is a lot of differents definitions of what is south Europe (areas of mediteranean climate (this would exclude milano, torino or Madrid whose climate is not mediteranean but include nice, Marseille or Montpellier and corsica) areas of latin and hellenic cultures, etc...)

Map problem

I would like to point out that the map for this page does not match the countries listed, many are missing from the map.

Linguistic map problem

The linguistic map od Southern Europe contains an error: Moldova is also a Latin-speaking (and vine cultivating /wine producing) country. Could someone correct it? noychoH 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Albanian and Greek are not related to Slavic languages, third and fourth colors are needed for this map.Dogru144 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

definition of the definition

We currently have one opinion that it's just pt/es/it/gr, and that it's all of the Mediterranean countries. If we go either way, there's need to acknowledge the other one. --Joy [shallot] 11:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The definitions given of the different "regions" of europe seems strange, it seems to be very abitrary. monaco in south Europe while the other cities of french rivera won't because being in France... What makes France a country so different from its spanish and Italian neighbours for not being part of south Europe ?... I don't know either where your definition of western Europe comes from. Why limiting western Europe to england, benelux and France ? Those countries don't share very much together culturally (France is a latin/catholic country, england and netherlands a germanic/protestant ones and geographically are not more western than iberian countries. Geographically I could understand that Germany would be excluded from western Europe because it is more eastern, but why are Spain and Portugal excluded from western Europe ?!

I agree that this definition of southern Europe is not from a European point of view. Most Europeans would put France in the same group than Italy , Spain And Portugal and would not group it with Germany, Austria or Netherlands. On the Other hand, netherlands or Germany are considered as nothern European countries, grouped with scandinavia and United Kingdom. Ahead of that, the north-south division doesn't exclude to be integrated in west and east groups: Excluding Spain and portugal from western Europe is geographically stupid and culturally shoking...

I think the only way of dividing Europe in regions or group of countries is to group them by cultural affinities and not abitrary grouping like is is done. Us, Europeans we usually group ourselves this way, by lminguistic-cultural groups, Then : - The northern Europe consist of germanic countries (germany, england, netherlands, scandinavia, flemnig belgium, iceland..) - The southern Europe consist in latin countries (Italy, Portugal, Spain, France) - The eastern Europe consist of the slavic countries (poland, tchek rep., Slovaquia, Russia, Ex-Yougosalvia, Bulgaria, etc.

I agree with that clasification. I think that is more accurate with the idea of regional differences that most of the europeans have in mind. It appears to me that the regions marked in the article are based on some kind of extraeuropean missconception . In fact, I do not think that the political borders can be sustained if the clasification is supposed to mean something. Parts of Italy should be considered Central Europe, parts of France south Europe and parts of Spain and whole Portugal western europe.

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

why remove southern France ??

I saw this subject some months ago. the southern half of France (the mediterranean half) completly have on its own right its place in the concept of southern Europe. Geographically, linguistically, climatically, ethnically, religiously, etc.

Even if France as a whole is not a southern European country dur to the localisation of its northern part in the core of central-western Europe, it remains linguistically and culturally a southern European country.

I also don't understand the definition of western Europe wich exclude the south part of western Europe (Spain and Portugal) wich are geographically and culturally completly part od western Europe.

I think that some of the people who had define those expression are not Europeans and don't realize that beaing of part of Western Europe doesn't prevent a country from being part of southern Europe, and being a southern European country doesn't prevent also to be part of western Europe. If I was a spanish I would be shooked to disover that I'm not in Western Europe anymore.

new map

I've had a map, in complement with the geopolitical map above; This new map is clearer, it shows the southern part of Europe in evidence and in the same time its limits are with gradiant, with seem to me more correct and more corresponding to European geography where precise limits are always arbitrary. I aslo put other maps what expalin what can be the different dfinitions of south Europe.

To 142.150.134.54

Why did you remove my contributions without any discussion ? If you don't agree with the informations and documents I've add, please explain and ask for opinions of other people. I don't think my contribution is narrow minded, but If you disagree fell free of express why. I think the different documents I've put are interesting in the way that they explain that the concept of south Europe is not just a administrative definition thet the United Nations or other governments can use, but it also, and primary refers to geographical, cultural, linguistic and climatic aspects. I think it is important to remind the different meanings and usages. Each one of these aspect do not exactly cover the others, that the reason why the definitions can vary. If you don't agree with that, or you you find that the way it is said (I'm not a native speaker, so I would be glad if you correct my English), instead of showing a vandal behaviour.

--Fabb leb 23:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong map

The first map of Europe is false; As long as it is supposed to represent the countries grouped after the UN classifications, there is no reason for UK to be included in Western Europe. The United kingdom are a country of Northern Europe, along with Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway. The same way of Romania, Moldavia and Bulgaria are not included in the concept of south Europe in the UN classifications.

This wrong map is seen in a lot of other articles about Europe and Europe classification in regions such as central Europe, etc. It would be good that this error would be corrected.

Also, there is already a map showing the UN regions of the world above this one, so there is no need to have two of them (with one being incorrect)

As long as the introduction text speak about the definition of south Europe as being the countries that borders the mediterranean sea, It would be logical to have a map in adequation with that definition, and so we should color France in green.

Pleas provide a source for these claims.--Burgas00 13:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is the UN country grouping, on the UN website : http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

UK is grouped withing northern Europe not with western Europe. Romania, Bulgaria and Moldavia in Eastern Europe, not southern. Monaco is not included in southern Europe but in western Europe. Slovenia is counted in southern Europe, not central Europe (this category doesn't exist) Austria, Germany and Liechtenstein are included in western Europe, not in central Europe.

As for France being a mediterranean country do I need really a source that say that France has mediterraean coasts

I have modified the map, there is two possibilities :

- First one is showing the division of Europe following the United Nations. It has the advantage of being clearly and officially defined, South Europe would be in Green. But it is also quite arbitrary, France not included despite being one of the major mediterranean countries. Also there is already a world map that show the UN divisions above, so there is another possibility :

- second map : it is following the text which is associated with the map and which says that Southern Europe is usually defined by the European countries with coastlines on the mediterranean sea. So the countries that have coastlines on the mediterranean sea are in green.

I put the second one because it is in adequation with the text.--Fabb leb 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

82.224.59.166 20:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)==France in Southern Europe???==

Practically no definition of southern Europe includes France which is placed squarely, culturally, politically, historically and geographically in Western Europe. I have reverted your map which is clearly erroneous and misleading. As for the definition: It is clearly erroneous aswell as unsourced. An example is Portugal, which is clearly in southern Europe but has no Mediterranean coasltine.

Here are some sources as examples:

This article is interesting since it goes precisely into the issue:

http://www.afdec.org.uk/PDFs/Idea_News_306_A4_LR.pdf#search=%22%22What%20is%20Southern%20Europe%22%22

According to the article France is linked to southern Europe because of it sharing a latin language and its Mediterranean coastline. However it concludes that its central positon, its connection to other French speaking nations such as Belgium and Luxembourg and part of Switzerland, and its tradition, make it part of Central Europe together with Germany.

I am also changing the definition to tqke into account the vagueness of the term.

--Burgas00 16:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Burgas, I would have like to have a discussion on the board before removing systematically any classification of France in southern Europe.

I Just had modified the the first map, which was incorrect because it showed arbitrary groups of countries (not following the UN classification) and I have proposed two other map that are more accurate. giving the choice of showing a map that is in adequation with the UN classification (wich is the basis of the groupings that are made in your exemples) or another one which is in adequation with the text that was defining a southern European country as one having coastlines on the mediterranean, which is onviously the case of France. But we can discuss this definition, since there are lot of differents points of view to define southern Europe.

" France which is placed squarely, culturally, politically, historically and geographically in Western Europe. "

I agree, of course France is in western Europe ! but being in western Europe doesn't mean that you could not be in southern Europe too. Italy, Spain and Portugal are in western Europe too, geographically, politically and culturally of course. (geographically Portugal and Spain are even more in western Europe than France.) Politically, geographically and historically I understand what does mean western Europe, but culturally this term doesn't lead to nothing; There is not a common culture of all western European countries - not linguistic unity, some are latin other Germanic or Slavic or Celtic, not religious since some are catholic and other protestant.

" I have reverted your map which is clearly erroneous and misleading. As for the definition: It is clearly erroneous aswell as unsourced. An example is Portugal, which is clearly in southern Europe but has no Mediterranean coasltine."

I agree, that being mediterranean is not exactly synonym of south European; But I just wanted to have a map in adequation with the definition. Can you provide other clear and rational definitions of southern Europe that you exclude clearly France, and we could discuss it.

" Practically no definition of southern Europe includes France "

I know plenty of companies or organisations that include France in southern Europe : http://www.arcolatino.org/en " an organisation of cooperation beetween France, Italy and Spain to reequilibrate Europe to it southern shore. http://www.ovpm.org/p3-10004.htm" http://listes.rezo.net/archives/migreurop/2005-11/msg00006.html http://www.world66.com/europe http://tica-europe-sud.ifrance.com/Tica2003/presentation-fr.htm http://www.eurocentre.fr/francais/presentation.html#zone http://www.youthhostel.ch/linkssuedosteuropa.html?&L=2 http://www.longitudebooks.com/find/c/316 http://www.odalys-vacances.fr/recherche/DrawCarte.asp?Cart_id=19&them_id=0&zo_id=5 http://www.europe-mediterranee.com/php/default.php http://archives.arte-tv.com/hebdo/dessouscartes/19980418/image/05.jpg http://www.2020spi.com/it/contacts.asp etc.

" ...However it concludes that its central positon, its connection to other French speaking nations such as Belgium and Luxembourg and part of Switzerland, and its tradition, make it part of Central Europe together with Germany."

France being part of central Europe ?! Where did you get that ? It is false geographically (central mean between north and south, but also between east and west). It is false culturally, and geographically; Central Europe refers to the countries who have under the influence of Germany of the Empire of Autria-Hungary. France has nothing to do in this category. what in culturally common beween France and Germany ? the language is completly different, the religious french tradition is catholic, germanty is at least half protestant. Germnay open on baltic sea, France on the mediterranean, etc. Central European culture and mentality is very different from French one, excepted maybe in Alsace, wich was one a part of Germany. With this kind of thinking we should conclude that Italy also should be included in central Europe since it has longer borders German speaking countries (switzerland and Austria). Also Italy has always has trong cultural exchanges with "the" central European historic empire : Austria-hungary, that France never had. You speak about the links of France with Belgium and Switzerland; France has links only with the French-speaking part of Belgium and Switzerland. On its part Italy has also strong links to switzerland, especially the Italian speaking switzerland, that doesn't make it a central European country.

I basically don't claim that France is completly a southern European country, it is not my opinion and it would be geographically half wrong. But the southern half of France is clearly southern European on every criterium : position in the south half of Europe, coast on the mediterranean, mediterranean climate and culture, mediterranean foods, latin language and herency, roman catholic tradition. I agree that the northern part is not geographically situated in southern Europe, and that the mediterranean influences are less important than in the south half, but, due to its latin culture it is basically still linked culturally to countries of southern Europe much more than to Gemany, England or Netherlands. As a whole (north+south) France is more a southern European country than any other classification possible, no doubt. To find a compromise I agree to show france with different colors, to show that it is usually included in more than one unique category. There is anyway the need to change the current map, which is incorrect: it shows Corsica as being outside of France and The different grouping are not folowing any rational definition, not even the UN classification (western Europe, excluding Spain and Portugal is limited to France UK and Benelux is completly inacurate. It is clear that in most point France is much more similar to Italy and Spain than to the UK - France and UK don't even have a common border, France is in latin Europe, UK in germanic Europe, France is catholic, UK is protestant, etc. UK should be grouped under the north-western European countries, along with Scandinavia and Netherlands - for geographic, linguistic, climatic and cultural reasons. The current shown definition of "western Europe include Corsica and Scotland in the same category... And not in the same category than sicily of Sardinia... It could not be more inacurate. Fabb leb 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be erroneous to class the country as Southern European. I agree that its ok to mention that in some conceptions of the term, southern France is included.

As to your points...

Well religion is a bad way to classify which part is southern, northern, western or Eastern; Predominantly catholic countries include Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic and much of Germany.

Latin language could be more credible as a factor if it wasnt for Rumania and Belgium which are most certainly not part of southern Europe.

Culturally, it would be difficult to establish what aspects define belonging to southern Europe. France is very similar culturally to the UK and I can tell you, having lived for years in all three countries, that the country is no closer culturally to Spain than to the UK.

Politically France is part of Western Europe, (Central in the sense of importance).

Economically France is part of Western Europe in the sense that it does not share the relative economic backwardness of countries such as Portugal, Greece, Spain or Southern Italy. Although there has been times of political instability, it has never been under long periods of military dictatorship, another political factor defining southern europe.

Climatically, the only part of France which can be classed as having a Mediterranean climate is the strip of Mediterranean coast and Corsica. Cities such as Toulouse, Bordeaux or Grenoble in Southern France most definitely do not have a Mediterranean climate.

Geographically, if you look on a map, it is difficult to include France in southern Europe. Most Southern European countries, except for Italy which is a bit more northern, are centered around the 40th parallel. Italy borders Germanic countries but it does so to the North not on the East like France.

--Burgas00 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

" I think it would be erroneous to class the country as Southern European."

Why, what fundamantally make France not a southern European country ? Could you provide some precise criteriums ? Most people in France would consider that it would be completly erroneous to classify France with UK, ireland and Benelux as you do(it is not even the recongnised UN restrected definition of "western Europe", which exclude the British isles). The reasons:

Geography: Ireland, UK and Benelux all are clearly situated in Northern Europe (55th, 54th and 53th parrallel, which France is not (46th parrallel).
Demography: UK and Benelux are part of the high density part of Europe (around 250-400 hb/km²), while France is among the traditionally rural and less dense countries like iberian peninsula (about 100 hab/km²)
Relief: except northen France, France is not part of the mainly flat regions of Northern Europe as Benelux and England are.
Language: French doesn't share the same linguistical groups than none of the other languages of this group, which all are germanic: English, Dutch and Flemish.
Religion: France, majoritary catholic doesn't share that traditionally protestant dominant societies of UK and north Netherlands.
Politics: UK, Netherlands and Belgium are all monarchies. France is a republic. England is not member of the Schengen space wheras France is.
Economics: UK doesn't use the Euro, while France does.

" I agree that its ok to mention that in some conceptions of the term, southern France is included. "

"Some"... I would be curious to see what are the "other" conceptions that make Southern France not a south European region. Southern France is southern European firstly because it is clearly situated in the south half of Europe and it has a similar culture to its Spanish and Italian neighbours on every point, from climate to architecture, food and social behaviours. I agree that in the northern half of France this link is less clear but still exist on much points. Anyway, the fact that you think France canno't be included because northern France doesn't have ALL the common caracteristics that could define southern Europe doesn't should lead to exclude from its natural category all the southern half of a country (part of it which is in all points southern European).

" Well religion is a bad way to classify which part is southern, northern, western or Eastern"

religion only canno't define southern countries. But you canno't deny that the Protestant tradition have its main territory in northern Europe, especially UK, Scandinavia and Germany. Catholic religion+latin language the basis caracteristic of the countries of south-west Europe.

" Latin language could be more credible as a factor if it was'nt for Rumania and Belgium which are most certainly not part of southern Europe. "

The exclusion of Romania of southern Europe is not clear, a lot of people and publications include without hesitation Romania in south Europe, or more precisely in south-est Europe with Balkanic region. It is not as southern than Greece, but it is geographically much more in the southern half of Europe than in the northern part. Latin languages and culture have their origin in lazio region, in central Italy - which is clearly in southern Europe. Even if latin languages had spread themselves in some non-geographically-southern lands such as Belgium, it doesn't change the fact that they are historically and culturally linked to the mediterranean. Anyway, Belgium is in its majority a country of Flemish language where French is minoritary. By many Belgium is considered a country at crossroads between south and north Europe, between latin and germanic Europe, geographically between Stockholm and Madrid, this very central position between north and south Europe have made that Bussels have been shoosen as the capital of Europe.

" Culturally, it would be difficult to establish what aspects define belonging to southern Europe."

I don't think. Southern Europe is much defined with its direct relation with the mediterranean sea, climatically, historically, and culturally. Cultures and civilisations are generally described by their language and their religion. I'm sorry but France have this geographical link with the mediterranean world, it is considered a mediterranean country, whose language is originary from a mediterranean civilisation, and whose faith is the Roman catholic, centred to Vatican.

4 of the 10 biggest French cities are located directly on the mediterranean sea, and 7 are located on the southern half of the country (so geographically in southern Europe). France second city, Marseille, is the biggest mediterranean port. France had direct influences of the mediterranean ancient peoples, phenicians, greeks, Romans and North Africans. Corsica, one of the main mediterranean islands is French. On the other side French influence have been present in Algeria, tunisia and morooco. South-west Europe is more precisely defined by it dominant latin-catholic culture, which includes France.

" France is very similar culturally to the UK and I can tell you, having lived for years in all three countries, that the country is no closer culturally to Spain than to the UK. "

!? In which ways UK and France share cultural similarities that Spain and Italy won't share !? Could you provide your sources, arguments and exemples ? I would be curious. France is similar to UK as it is to any other whealthy and "westernized" European countries, it is the case of most coutries of the EU. Politically and economically both countries are developped nations, but so are Italy and Spain. If you mean politic, UK implications in the EU is much more distant than Italy and Spain. Economically, with Italy and Spain we share similar level of life, we use the same money (The Euro that UK doesn't). Also the french social system is very far from the social service system of the UK. We could almost say that inside the deveopped countries UK and France have constructed their economic system in two very different models. But I'm sorry if speaking of culture France and UK are even more in two different "Europes": linguistically UK is Germanic, France is latin; for the traditional and religious influence UK is protestant, France is catholic. If speaking about food traditions, France is part of the "Europe of wine", while UK is traditionally in the "Europe of beer", etc. the list could be long. I'm sorry, but of all the main countries that are neighbours to France (Italy, Spain, Germany and UK), UK is mostly considered the least culturally and politically similar and is the more geographically distant since we don't even have border with it.

" Politically France is part of Western Europe, (Central in the sense of importance). "

Once again, France is of course clearly a western European country, as much as could be Norway, Germany, Italy or Spain. The arbitrary limited category of "western Europe" has shown on the map has no geographic and cultural meanings. It was just made upon old fashioned US/UK-centrered geopolitical schemes, that was supposed to include the "winners" of the WW2, and in the mind of the American geopoliticians of that time, the countries that are (or were supposed to be) in the American sphere of influence. Since then a lot of things have changed in Europe, the extention of democracy, fall of communism, integration of former east European countries in EU, democratisation and economic growth of the Iberian peninsula, etc. In 2006, this purely geopolitically based conception of "western europe" is old fashioned and does not corespond to any tangible reality on political or economical points. Geographically and culturally this concept has no meaning too. Nowadays the only way we could use "western Europe" is as a vague geographical concept that include the west part of Europe (from scandinavia to Spain), and to make a distinction of the former countries of the "west bloc" who still have wealthier economies than their eastern European counterparts.

" Economically France is part of Western Europe in the sense that it does not share the relative economic backwardness of countries such as Portugal, Greece, Spain or Southern Italy. "

I'm sorry to be so direct but your statements are not only false, they are also close to anti-south European discriminatory stereotypes. I'll say why: We are speaking about classification based upon the Europe of 2006, not the one of WW2! Today all the countries of the EU (which is more or less the equivalent of "western Europe") are democracies and enjoy about the same levels of life (Italy, France and Germany have the same levels of developements, Spain is close behind. If you think of south Europe as economically backwarded as latin America vs the US you have a completly wrong image. It may have been true in the past (northern Italy and Catalunia excluded) but it is absolutly not today. I agree that Greece and Portugal are still bit behind, but much less than East-germany, Poland or some of the recent EU newcomers, and still complelty part of the so-called "first world". Are those countries "south European" because they would be economically "backwarded"? It would be stupid and wrong. Italy, the world 6th largest economy is since the 20th a big indutrial power, and Spain is the 8th world economy (about like Canada). Spain and Italy are now complete democraties and deveopped countries as much as France Or UK - countries that are becoming more and more cosmopolitan and that attracts a lot of immigrants, just have to get a look to Madrid, Barcelona or Milano. France and Italy have completly egual levels of richness. If to be a southern European country it would be necessary to be "backwarded" (even "relatively as you said"), Italy should be removed from this groups following your logic. On the political sence Italy is linked with other western European countries since longer time than The UK, since it was one of the 6 foundators of the European union in 1957 (Rome's treaty). You spoke about the backwardness of southern Italy, would it mean that the prousperous central and northern Italian regions (most of the country and most of its population) are not part of southern Europe? And what about the poor regions of Germany (which are clearly in the north part of Europe)?

" Although there has been times of political instability, it has never been under long periods of military dictatorship, another political factor defining southern europe. "

Another time this is wrong and almost prejudice. in the 2006's Europe all southern European countries would be not in included in southern Europe since they don't correspond to your so-called "political factor defining southern Europe", being all "first world" democracies. Once again you placed yourself in definition which would have partially accurancy only in one precise time in the past. I we look more recently or a longer time before you will see that Portugal, Spain and Italy have always been the major and most developped western countries, together with France, England and Germany. I agree that Spain, Portugal and Greece, despite that fact that they are nowadays very stable and progressive democracies had been until the seventies lead by dictatorships; but wy this past criterium should be considered to continue to define them (when we know the astonishing rapidity of adaptation of Spain to democracy). But more than this, Italy, why do you not exclude it ? Italy since the end of WW2 have been a democracy and had knew a period of "economic miracle" equivalent of the french "trente glorieuses" in the same period. You would say "and before?", yes before Italy have ruled by a dictature, but wasn't also the case of Germany ? (which not may not consider as a southern European country I suppose!). I don't see in what way the pre-WW2 political situation of Europe could be a way of defining the modern groups of countries. Politically the Italian and french state are construted on very similar structures - and are both unfortunally damaged by chronic ministerial instability.

" Climatically, the only part of France which can be classed as having a Mediterranean climate is the strip of Mediterranean coast and Corsica. Cities such as Toulouse, Bordeaux or Grenoble in Southern France most definitely do not have a Mediterranean climate."

I agree, but as you can see on the map the regions of mediterranean climate doesn't cover all of Spain or Italy too. Milano, Torino, Bologna, Venezia, Madrid, Valladolid, Bilbao, Santander, Saragoza, Toledo, Santiago de compostella, Porto , etc. are not at all situated in mediterranean climate too. Spain's dominant climate is the continental one (all central spain), very hot in summer and very cold in winter. Spain has oceanic climates on its Atlantic coasts as France do, and mediterranean climates only in the mediterranean shores and in Andalucia. Northern Italy climate is a very continental one, similar to Germany's climate, where it is generally more cold than in Paris in winter.

" Geographically, if you look on a map, it is difficult to include France in southern Europe. Most Southern European countries, except for Italy which is a bit more northern, are centered around the 40th parallel. "

I agree that it is difficult to include the northern half of France in southern Europe in a pure geographical way, that is the only reason why I propose a map where the north of France will be bicolor, to find a compromise. I agree that Portugal, Spain and Greece are centred to about the 40th parralel, but not Italy, which is centred more northern around 43°, Croatia 45°, France, Romania and Slovenia 46°, Serbia 44° (Germany lies about 52th parralel, UK 54th, netherland 53th). On the other hand, the southern half of France is centred about on the 44th parallel, about the level of Firenze in Tucasny. Italy's most northern point is at 47°, the same level than Nantes, in southern Britany. Lyon (french second city) is at the same level than Milano or Venezia, Grenoble or Bordeaux are at the same level than Torino. Nice is at the same than Firenze. Marseille, Toulon and Montpellier are at the level of southern Tuscany. Bayonne or perpignan are situated at the level of Pescara in Abruzze region. Ajaccio is just at the same level than Rome or Foggia (in the very southern italian region of puglia).

"Italy borders Germanic countries but it does so to the North not on the East like France. "

France borders Germanic countries on the north-east only. On the south east France borders Italy, France borders the French speaking switzerland (which is, together with Italian switzerland the southern half of switzerland). The French border with Germany is by the way much shorter than the border of Italy with Austria, and is considered as one of the northern borders of France (with luxembourg and Belgian one). Excepted Alsace no French region could be considered as "central Europe". And by the way, south Tyrol, a region of Italy has German as an offical language could largely be included in central Europe...

Fabb leb 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

constant reverts

I tried to change the first Europe map, which was inacurate due to the fact that the southern France is excluded from southen Europe, Corsica is indicated separated to France, and the "western European" group unfairly exclude Spain and Portugal. I proposed more than one version of the map and I opened a discussion about this changing. I have systematic reverts made without any discussion and any argumentation.

I am myself living in Montpellier, France, I am in all point in a southern European territory and society. Everybody is free of not being agree, but it could be good to do so giving explanations on the board and explaining to me why the place where I am, the culture that I have, and the society in which I live in 2006, have to be grouped with Places like Scotland or Rotterdam more than with Milano or Barcelona. I would be glad to discuss the subject rationally and respectfully.

I have an open mind, and I am ready to change my point of view if it could be rationally argumented that France is culturally, politically, economically, linguistically, climatically, religiously, and geographically not at all a southern European country but that it has necesserally to be grouped with some northern European countries such UK or Netherlands more than it mediterranean neighbours as it is shown in the first map.

I'm a European, and not a native English speaker, So I don't see Europe from an Anglo-Saxon point of view. I understand that it seems there is in English-speaking nations a tradition to group France into the very restrictive group of "western Europe" based upon pre- and after-WW2 geopolitical situation. This vision of Europe is not at all used in France (I don't know for other countries).

I think an encyclopedia, and especially an international on-line encyclopedia should avoid to have a conception too much centred on the english-speaking point of view only, especially when this point of view was constructed from outdated political situations. And should be open in to other definitions. Fabb leb 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To the person that is continuing deleting my contributions without any explanation and discussion : this behaviour is close to vandalism; you may have the right not being agree, but it would be great and respectfull for other conceptions than yours to discuss it with an open mind and not applying a narrow minded sensure (which is not even founded on official, rational or reliable sources.) I've added a map of Europe with overlaping regions that you deleted without any discussion. It showed the reality of the continent, in the sense that it is complex and include linguistic, cultural, historic, economic, climatic and of course geographic conceptions, and so that the groups could overlap (without even deleting the "current division in 5 regions", which is a completly wrong and old-fashonned way of grouping countries, I've say why I think so above). If you have a reliable source that prouve to us that the concept of "western Europe" includes only UK, Benelux and France, and that those countries share together the same geography, the same political system, the same linguistic and cultural affinities, the same money, the same climates, etc. I would agree that this concept has some validity, I continue to wait for your sources and argumentations that seem to lack since the beguining.

In wikipedia article about western Europe, no definition of western Europe coresponds to that one - the main definition means the western capitalist bloc of the cold war. the alternative definition is the United Nation definition, which includes Germany but exclude UK and Ireland, which are part of Northern Europe together with Scandinavia. Please give your source and explain to me why your conception of western Europe (UK+France+Benelux) should be the only valid one in 2006 ?

When looking at each criterium, it is clear that France has much more to do with Italy than to UK and Netherlands, I'll repeat why : - Geographically : The gravity center of UK and Netherlands are at about 53° of latitude, France is about at 46° (Italy is about 42°) - Relief : UK and netherland are relatively flat regions. Northern France too, but France share also the south European mountains and plateaus of massif central, Pyrenees, Alps and Corsican moutains, as Italy and Spain does.

- Language : UK and Netherlands have a germanic language, France a romance one, close to Italian.

- Religion : UK is of Protestant tradition, Netherlands has a important protestant implantation too. France is overwhelmingly catholic, as Italy.

- Climate : UK and netherlands have a north-western oceanic climate. France have also a part of continental climate, mediterranean climate, montanous climates, the mediterranean influenced continental climates of Toulouse region, and south western oceanic climate in south west as in northern coast of Spain. Variety of climates and strong presence of micro climates (due to the high mountains, plateaus and closed plains) is a characteristic of countries such as Spain and Italy.

- Political system : UK and Netherlands are constitutional monachies, France and Italy are republics.

- Economy : All those countries are wealthy capitalist economies, of similar incomes. Italy has the same economic power than UK and France, with the same population. Spain is close behind. It is not backwarded as some people may think.

- Europe : France and Italy are two of the foundators of the European Union (netherlands too), while the UK is not.

- Money : France and Italy share the same money, UK doesn't.

- History : the main traditional historical kingdoms of Europe were Spain, Portugal, France, UK and netherlands. Excluding Spain and Portugal of Western Europe is unfair, since they have been leading western Europe from 15th to 17th century. They have been the firsy countries to bring western civilisation to the American land. Excluding Italy is even more unfair, since the foundations of Western Europe such as Roman christianity are directly originary to the Roman empire, whose origin was Italy. The (re)birth of the modern western culture occured firstly in Italy (rinacimiento/renaissance, which mean "re-birth") and spread new ideas in arts and science Iberian peninsula and France. This was one the predisposition of the birth of the enlightment movement of the 17-18th century, and then the industrial revolution.

- Industry : Even if France have been one of the first countries to know an industrialisation in the 19th century, this industrialisation was limited to Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Parisian region, and did not shaped the whole land as it does in UK or Benelux. Most French regions still were a rural until the 1960's, in a similar situation than Italy where the indutry was mainly developped in the Po Plain but the rest of the country was still very rural.

- Cultural habits : the wine and "slow-food" culture is shared by France and Italy, while UK and netherland are prt of the traditional "Europe of beer". A lot of other characteristic such as relation to time and social codes are shared between France and Italy and not with UK and Netherlands.

- Gastronomy is derived from italian style of cooking. The main french drink, wine is the traditional mediterranean drink. Olive oil is windely used in french cookin, especially in the south. The traditional food of northern France; northern Spain and Northern Italy are more butter-based.

- Arts : gardens "a la Francaise" are just the adaptation of the Italian renaissance gardens, etc.

In conclusion, I understand that one of the definitions of western Europe that is may be still used in the USA is the purely geopolitical one of the mid-20th century, were western Europe was supposed to be represented by the allies of the USA just after WW2, that is to say UK, France and Benelux. Today this grouping as no political meaning anymore and doesn't deserve to be cited anymore in a country classification of Wikipedia. That is the reason why I proposed other classifiocations wich correspond better with the way we (Europeansà tend to see our own continent, and not a US-centred geopolitical old-fashionned conception. But I you have sources and arguments that could prouve that this grouping is still have sence I'll wait for them.

Fabb leb 13:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

KhoiKhoi, the first map you systematically try to put at the beguining of the article is wrong (it excludes Corsica to France, it does count England in Western Europe and not northern, and it doesn't represent any political, economical, cultural, linguistic and not even purely geographical rational groupings), the concept of "western Europe" that includes just the winners of WWZ is completly outdated in today's world, and doesn't correspond to any cultural, geographical or political reality and is not even used that way in UN classifications (I've said why above). If you continue to systematically change any modificatgion that doesn't correspond to the view that you defend, avoiding any discussion of the subject with an open mind I will conclude that you are just a vandal who try to impose its own personal views. this attitude canno't be tolerated in an international online encyclopedia. Your behaviour put me in the obligation to revert systematically your modification as you did with mines until you give your sources that prouve that the only possible grouping of Europe is the one you want to impose to everybody else.

Please read the policies and guidelines, and try to respect it. Understand that this encyclopedia is not only a USA-centred point of view (especially when it is outdated), or a tool to spread you own conceptions, but the goal is to try to find a concensus among the diverses point of views of the diverses cultures of this world (using a respectful discussion towards other argumented opinions). Thank you. Fabb leb 13:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fabb. Its not me who is reverting your edits but (as a European) I feel you are wrong in placing France in Southern Europe. Since you use cooking and olive oil in your argument for placing France culturally in this region, here is some interesting info I just found:

Annual per capita olive oil consumption:

Greece: 23.7 litres
Spain: 13.62 litres
Italy: 12.35 litres
France: 1.34 litres

I think a mediterranean/Southern European diet requires more than just one litre of olive oil a year!:D

As for the economic argument. I imagine you are relatively young not to have known the huge difference between Greece or Spain and France for example. Up until quite recently crossing from Spain to France was the equivalent of crossing from North Africa to Europe nowadays. When Spain joined the ECC in 1986 its per capita income was well below 70% of the EU average.Its economic boom is a very recent affair and the billions of Euros of Cohesion funds recieved throughout the 90s have been a great help. Much of France is and has been agricultural, but unlike Spain, Portugal, Greece and Southern Italy, Agricultural areas in France have traditionally been very prosperous and have not suffered the same social and economic problems of rural poverty which spawned the mafia in Italy and rural revolt and civil strife in Spain, Portugal and Greece throught the 20th century .

--Burgas00 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Burgas, As I said previously I don't consider France as a whole as being completly part of southern Europe, for obvious geographic reasons, its northern part is not situated in the southern half of the continent. In a cultural way that is diferent. I think that the misconception we know each other is that you think "southern Europe" in the limited meaning of "extreme south Europe". The same way some of us can consider that "northern Europe" is limited to scandinavia or even northern scandinavia, with this conceptions England or Germany will not be northern European, while those countries are considered as part of northern Europe in most of the romance-speaking nations of Europe point of view, although those countries are less northern than sweden of denmark they are situated more around the "north sea area" and northern half of Europe and share a lot of common points togheter. I agree that France, even southern France is not part of "extreme south Europe" as Greece, Andalucia or Sicily are. If you reference point of "southern Europe" is limited to those extreme regions France is of course not at all a southern European country - but most of Spain and most of Italy won't be part of it either! if "south Europe" is just the Sicilian/Andalucian traditional stereotypes as so many people think, Madrid, Firenze, Venice, Galicia, Basque country, Torino, etc... don't have more in common with it that most of France (even less in the case of Corsica. Corsican society have many common points with Sicily and should be counted in "extreme southern Europe")

As for the argument of olive oil... is it the only criterium (compared with all the ones I've put ? isn't it a bit light criterium ?) I agree that France consumption of olive oil is lower than Spain or Italy's ones (although I think you numbers are really underestimated). It doesn't change the fact that olive oil is traditionally cultivated and consumed in france since milleniums and is an important ingredient of many french traditional dishes (I myself produce a part of my own consumption, like a lot of people in my region), and is not an "imported fashion" as it can be in northern Europe. Olive oil is not the only typical mediterranean product; the other traditional one is Wine. let's look at the numbers : France 56, Italy 48, Portugal 46, Spain 34, Germany 24, UK 16, Sweden 16, Norway 12, USA 7

For you economic argument, do you really think that today's Europe should be though upon the economic levels dating back 30 or 40 years ago ? I personally don't see why southern Europe shoud include only countries that were relatively backwarded at one precise time of the past. Only the situation of today should count. Even If we had to take your economic point of view, we should conclude that Italy is not southern European because excepted the extreme south the whole country has been one of the leading European economies since during the 50 last years. Italy has always had a more simalar level of life to the French one than to the Spanish one... So we should exclude Italy ?

I'm not so young that you may think, and I have been in Spain in the last 80's, when it was still in a very different economical state than nowadays. BUt low economy canno't define southern Europe! Especially when it is the economical situation that is not the one of nowadays. In this case we should conclude that Spain is not in southern Europe anymore since a few years! which would be stupid. By the way, other classifications such as "central Europe" include countries whose level of life has been (and STILL be) much more different than France and Spain could have had in the recent past (ex. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein on one side and Slovaquia, Poland, Tcheck Republic on the other) this added to the fact that ones are Germanic-based countries and other are slavic-based, could incite ourselves to ask if the whole concept of "central Europe" as much value, but this is another question.

You said that rural France was "very prosperous". I'm sorry but I was unfortunally wrong (and still in some parts) you just had to come in languedoc, Provence, Corsica, massif central or even Britany's countryside 30 years ago to see that it not the case at all. Just after WW2 all French countryside was very backwarded comparatively to the indutrial centers of northern Europe.

I continue to be curious that you explain why in the Europe of 2006, France has to be grouped with UK and Netherlands (two very diffent countries in terms of Geography, language, climate, with who France doesn't even have borders), while there are Italy and Spain with who France share its longest borders, speak similar language and latin heritage, have the same catholic herency, share the same mountains and same sea, etc. ?

Fabb leb 20:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is not whether some parts of France should be considered part of Southern Europe, I think we both agree that they should: in the same way as part of Spain should be considered Africa, part of Turkey should be considered Europe and part of Egypt should be considered to be in Asia. What we are arguing about is whether France as a country should be considered a southern European country. In my opinion France (and the UK) are 100% Western European. Scandinavia is Northern Europe, Spain and Italy are both South and Western Europe and Greece is both South and South Eastern Europe.

Actually the concept of Central Europe does have much value, although these concepts are very subjective and change with time. You should read Milan Kundera. I still mantain my point that the first thing one notices in driving through France is the prosperity in (most) rural regions and villages. There are depressed regions obviously. This is relative of course, but, I have the impression that real poverty in this country has been historically more present in the industrial regions of the north (same goes for the UK). In France there has never been mass interior and exterior migrations from rural areas. There are no French immigrants in any northern european country.

As for the climatic factor: Unlike Portugal, Spain, Italy or Greece, a majority of France does not share a Mediterranean climate.

A majority of Italy shares this climate except for the Po Valley. The same goes for Portugal which is Mediterranean except for the Northern Third of the country. As for Spain, despite the high altitude of the Central plateaux, these areas can be considered to be mediterranean or continentalised mediterranean with very hot summers and fresh winters. Madrid, for example, has similar winter temperatures as Nimes or Montpellier, (despite its high altitude) and is more typically mediterranean than southern France in terms of rainfall. I would say that only one third of the country could be considered non-mediterranean in climate. As for Croatia, about half the country is mediterranean (the dalmatian coast) and the rest has the typical interior Balkan climate with freezing winters. --Burgas00 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

" The question is not whether some parts of France should be considered part of Southern Europe"

Some parts... geographically speaking it is the half of the country, it not just "some parts". And culturally, France as a latin country has much more with Italy than with Netherlands and UK in all points (unless you could tell me the contrary, as I asked before) (see previous arguments).

" part of Spain should be considered Africa".

If you speak about the micro-territories of Ceuta and Melilla, and compare it with the case of the southern half of France, it is not a very serious and honest demonstration !! In this case France is a caribean and south American country! (1 million french citizens live there), or even a polar country (thanks to Terre Adelie)... The part of France which is southern European is not an anectodic ultra-minoritary oversea part of the country as Ceuta and Melilla are for Spain, the European part of Turkey, or the Sinai in Egypt are minoritary regions of those countries. You canno't say the same for southern France, which is historically the origin of the pre-french culture (the first places were Gallic people were "romanized" and blend with Romans), before it spreads to the north. The mediterranean France includes 4 of the 10 biggest French cities : Marseille (biggest mediterranean port, urban area of 2 million people), Nice (urban area 1 million people), Montpellier (Urban area 600 000 people), Toulon (urban area 500 000 people). To which we should include big non-mediterranean southern cities such as Lyon (second urban area in France), Toulouse (1 million people), Bordeaux (800 000 People)and Lyon (second urban area). Other big cities such as Nimes, Perpignan, Aix-En-Provence, Cannes-Grasse-Antibes are mediterranean urban areas beetween 200 000 and 400 000 People. In the southern half you find also Grenoble, Saint Etienne, Clermont-Ferrand, Biarritz-Anglet-Bayonne, etc. whose population is around 400 000 people each. Finally 7 of the 10 biggest French cities are in southern Europe.

In traditional architecture, there is a characteristic which is very typical to the southern European urban landscape, it is roman tile roofs. In France, below the line "Poitiers-Macon", the roman tile roof clearly domines (in about 60% of France) as it does in Spain and Italy (excepted some regions there). Speaking in terms of urbanity, we clearly notice in most of French big cities the dominant southern european model, made with quite wide dense city centers (the medieval centrer surounded and tranformed by the 19th century urbanity) and surrounded by reduced low density urban areas. I incite you to go to Google earth and compare the equivalent main cities of France, Italy and UK to see what it means (London/Paris/Milan; Birmingham/Lyon/Rome; Liverpool/Marseille/Naples; Manchester/Toulouse/Turin; etc), you could also watch photos of thoses cities on internet (aerial in better).

" In my opinion France (and the UK) are 100% Western European. Scandinavia is Northern Europe, Spain and Italy are both South and Western Europe and Greece is both South and South Eastern Europe. "

In your opinion maybe, but don't forget that wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and that points of view can varies from country to country. I personnally think that the European grouping of countries that we should favor in wikipedia is a concensual one (or more than one if there is not concensus). The best we could have to do is to show a map of European regions that are not precisely defined and can overlap with each other (as you said Spain and Italy are both southern and western European, from a french point of view UK is considered northern (as it is considered in the UN classifications) and western European, as well as Scandinavia). In a French point of view we never include France in a restricted ("UK+benelux" western European concept, since UK and benelux are associated with the other germanic speaking/majoritary of protestant tradition countries of northern Europe). From a French point of view, Germany is generally considered as a northern European country and a central european country for its southern half, etc. regions overlaps and definitions can change dramatically in the different cultures. That was the reason why I've made a new map with this idea, and added it to the "current division map" (which is completly incorrect in the point of view of my country, but that I accept that have some validity in some other point of view). Some narrow-minded people here systematically reverted it without any discussion and argumentation (I can accept that my map is not perfect and I would be glad to have comments to improve it instead of vandal behaviours) - that's why I really appreciate that YOU discuss it. this was this map : We can discuss it. I personally thing that, combined with the "traditional English-speaking" point of view, it cand show that definitions are not strict and can combine with other points of view (I personally think that my map says more about the fluctuant realities of the European continent, in term of geography, culture, history and even economy than the old "current map", but I'll accept both since the world is plural and I don't consider that my point of view should be imposed to the other cultures.)

" I still mantain my point that the first thing one notices in driving through France is the prosperity in (most) rural regions and villages."

Most of Italy is more prosperous than French rural regions. In France the prosperity is really important in the Paris regions but not really outside. you should look at this map of the income/hab in different european regions: http://www.libercarto.prd.fr/themes/travaux/europe/pnb/carte2.htm This map is of 1996. Since then Spain has recover most of its relative "backward". A more recent map would show it clearly.

" I have the impression that real poverty in this country has been historically more present in the industrial regions of the north (same goes for the UK). "

poverty in the industrial region of "Nord-pas-de-Calais" is quite relative recent phenomenon that relates to the fact that heavy industry has know a great crisis when the societies have turned to a service society in the 70's. The traditionally "poor" regions in France are generally rural and were found (and still in some cases) in the massif central, Britanny, Languedoc, Marseille region and Corsica.

" In France there has never been mass interior and exterior migrations from rural areas. "

?? This is purely false, you seem not knowing at all the French realities! In the 2Oth century there have been a huge migration from rural areas to Paris and other big cities, called "l'exode rural". you should read the book "Paris et le desert Français".

" As for the climatic factor: Unlike Portugal, Spain, Italy or Greece, a majority of France does not share a Mediterranean climate. "

As for the climate of Castilla, it is not considered as mediterranean, but generally (for Castilla la Mancha and Madrid region) as a mediterranean-influenced continental climate. the climate of Toulouse region is considered a mediterranean-influenced continental climate also. Portugal has not a pure mediterranean climate but is mostly oceanic in the north, or oceanic-influenced mediterranean in the south.

And the ex-yougoslavian republics, Macedonia or Bulgaria ? which you seem not doubt about their belonging to southern Europe, have a Slavic culture whose origin is not the mediterranean (contrary to France), have a mediterranean shore without major cities, and have a very limited mediterranean climate (due to the imediate presence of costal mountains), and no mediterranean climate and shores in the case of Macedonia and Bulgaria - in the case of France the mediterranean shore is very populated, historically and culturally it was central to the formation of the pre-french culture and the mediterranean climate enter the land through languedoc plains, Rhone valley and to south west through Laugaret region. Why don't you have problems to include those ex-Yougoslavian countries in the concept (what about the huge economic differences they have with Italy and Spain, which recieve a lot of ex-yougoslavian imigrants)?

Fabb leb 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Block quote

==More on France==

I am agreeing with you with most points you make. Just one correction, I was referring to the Canary Islands aswell as Ceuta and Melilla, which makes up around 5% of the Spanish population (more than most other provinces). One should not compare the DOM/TOM to these regions since the latter a clearly a vestige of the colonial era. Read the corresponding articles on Ceuta, Melilla and the Canaries. Ceuta for example was already Spanish (Visigothic actually) even before the Islamic conquest in 711AD.

As for the map you show, it only proves my point. I was looking for a similar map on www.europa.eu.int which i saw a couple of years ago on European peripherical regions. These still correspond to Spain (except Catalonia, Aragon, and the basque country), Southern Italy and Greece -aswell as most of the Ex-socialist republics. Periphery is normally associated to Southern Europe and no departement of France falls in this category.

What bothers me is that according to no criteria which we are using, France's southern europeanness is indisputable. If France was INDISPUTABLY Southern Europe according to at least one of these (geographic, economic, cultural, historical or political) I would agree with you and your map. Right now i think that northern france should be left western european with southern france having southern europe "stripes".

As for the Balkans I think they should all be striped. It would be easier to have north, south, west and east, with stripes for the overlaps....

What do u think? --Burgas00 13:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"I was referring to the Canary Islands aswell as Ceuta and Melilla, which makes up around 5% of the Spanish population."

Concerning Canarias, it is also a vestige of colonial area as well as DOM-TOMs. Canarias were definitively integrated into Spain in 1496. Canarias canno't be compared in no point with southern France (size, importance of the population, distance from the rest of the country, and historical and cultural role in the formation of the identity). the part of France that is clearly in southern Europe represent the half of the country (or more depending of the criteriums), and the foundations of the french culture originates from southern Europe. Spanish culture obviously doesn't originate from Canarias, where after the colonisation it removed the previous guanche culture and people. By the way, Canarias, Madère and DOM-TOMs are together considered as "ultra-peripheric regions of Europe" : http://madinina2002.chez-alice.fr/regions.html

" As for the map you show, it only proves my point."

The map prouves that 70% of Italian territory is richer than 80% of French territory. Following your logic Italy shouldbe removed from southern Europe since the "poor/economical periferies" regions are a minority limited to the extreme south of the country. If you exclude France for economic reasons, Italy should be excluded too, since the economic level of both countries is completly similar.

" Periphery is normally associated to Southern Europe and no departement of France falls in this category. "

This is where I don't agree, geographically and economically I don't share the point of view that only "extreme-south Europe" should be considered as south Europe, and Italy doesn't even fits in that category ! Southern Europe canno't be defined by economy, because econmy change! When Spain will have the exact same level than France Italy or UK (it will be probably the case very soon), should it be remove from southern Europe ? And what about the Barcelona region (which attract a lot of French people from Languedoc thanks to the better job opportunities ?). What about the Madrid province, which is today one of the most prosperous capital of Europe ? What about the 70% (huge majority) of Italian territory which as a better level of life than the French average ? etc. The problem is that you seem to think southern Europe as "periferical extreme southern Europe" only. Why not, but in this case Italy should be removed and Spain will be soon too. you can look at this map of Europe by GDP. France and Italy have the same color, a bit stronger than Spain, but a bit weaker than north-western European countries. Nowadays, the economical perifery is the baltic states and east part of central Europe: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Union_GDP_per_capita.png Map of the structural funds distribution (before the enlargement): it concerns regions in all the cardinal directions of Europe, not only regions of situated in southern Europe; but also in the British isles, northern scandinavia, east germany and overseas regions of Spain, Portugal and France. Today most of those funds have been removed from Spain to favorise Poland and the nother newcomers of the former eastern block. In Italy those funds concerned only the extreme south. In France it concerned Corsica aswell as former indistrial regions at Belgian border + all DOM-TOMs. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/en/public/golden_n/obj4/fr/images/carte.gif

" What bothers me is that according to no criteria which we are using, France's southern europeanness is indisputable."

We can always discuss and doubt of everything, it is not a bad thing, but it is much more disputable to include France with north-western European countries such as the United Kingdom and Netherlands, with which we don't share borders, geographical position, language and cultural groups, the same industrial/rural characterisitics, the opening on the same sea bassin, the same majoritary religious cultural influence (when we know the importance of the protestant values/vs catholic ones in the formation of the differents habits towards work, time, human relations and capitalism), the same money or political system, etc. I continue to don't undertand what does your limited definition (UK+benelux+France) of "western Europe" means today ?

" If France was INDISPUTABLY Southern Europe according to at least one of these "

- "geographic": I agree that it may be the most disputable point, since I don't consider the northern half of France to be in southern Europe. Said that the position of France is centred about 46°. Italy is about 42-43°, while UK is 54°. which is closer ? classify France among north-western European countries such as UK and Netherlands is a complete geographic nonsence.

- "economic" : I continue not understand what mean "economically" south European - It clearly doesn't means to be backwarded, since the most backwarded regions of Europe are today in central Europe, and some regions of northern Europe are traditionally backwarded such as Ireland, east Germany and Northern Scandinavia. France has the same level of life than Italy and not a far one to Spain. France use the same money than Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy and has a similar relation to capitalism.

- "cultural" : France is a latin country, and like it or not, latin cultures comes from the mediterranean.

- "historical" : France has historically always been linked with the mediterranean, Italy and Spain (Greek colonies, Roman empire, Italian influence of renaissance on the birth of French art, philosophy and science; French (bourbons or Napoleon) influence over Spain and Italy, direct contacts of the Genovese or piemontese kingdoms. With Spain, sharing two regions (pays basque and Catalunia), occitan and french speaking regions in Italy, etc. Finally, Europe is small, all countries of Europe had contacts with others during their history. All western European countries have been integrally part of the European civilisation, conquest of Americas (firstly Spain), renaissance, enlightment, industrial revolution, European constrution, etc. their own way.

- "political" : France is politically very similar to other south European countries : democracy, human rights, elected government, etc. If for you south European mean dictature, then Spain, Italy and Portugal are not south European countries, and then Germany was a south European country beetween 1933 and 1945!

" Right now i think that northern france should be left western european with southern france having southern europe "stripes"."

I don't agree. ALL France is part of western Europe, as well as Spain, UK, Scandinavia or Italy (look at my map and look at the definition of western Europe in Wikipedia, the alternative resctrictive definition of western Europe anyway would exclude the UK). "Western Europe", as it is used nowadays in 99% of definition includes bith northwestern and southwestern European countries. We could even say that been historically closer Rome (origin of western civilisation), southern France is "more" western European than the north. on my map, the definition of western Europe coincides with the definition in which most people understand the term. As for southern France, I don't see why we should put "stripes" on it ? In what sence does the south of France have north-western characteristics ? You never answered me that question, as well as you never answered why do you think that France is supposed to have more common points with UK and Ntherlands than with Italy ?

" As for the Balkans I think they should all be striped. It would be easier to have north, south, west and east, with stripes for the overlaps.... What do u think? "

I think that thinking that North/south division and East/West division are two different things. A country can be southern and completly western in the same time, or northerner and easterner. In reality there are a North-west Europe centred around the north sea (germanic and protestant), a South-West Europe centred around the western mediterranean (latin and catholic), a north-eastern Europe (slavic and orthodox), and south-eastern Europe (the Balkans, of mixed Slavic orthodox and catholic with Greek, Roman and turquish influences). And there can be some overlapings in the borders of those regions,such as in northern France (where latin culture has known a lot of influences of north-western European cultures and geographical environnement), or in central Europe where the 4 division overlap and interacted under Austrian-Hungarese influences. The south Of France has to stay fully south European, or maybe could you tell me what is not south European in southern France ?

Fabb leb 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok leaving France to one side for a second, your dividing line of East and Western Europe should include East Germany right? There are many possible division lines, there is the Huntington line (which I find rather silly) dividing Catholic-Protestant countries from Orthodox-Muslim ones. There is the cold war line and there is of course the EU frontier which is only temporary. Nevertheless it is funny how the EU seems to have expanded exactly according to the division of Catholic and Orthodox Europe (Except for Greece).

As for the Canary islands, it is true that it could be considered a form of early colonialism, but then again 1496 is only 3 years after the creation of the Spanish state, and Guanches have been absorbed into the general population of the islands (and of the peninsula through slavery). Canarians are as Spanish (or more so) as Basques or Catalans.

This is my opinion for the moment:

Spain, portugal, southern France, Italy -(striped southern western)
Northern France, Benelux, Switzerland- Western
UK-western maybe striped northern (not in my opinion)
Scandinavia- northern.
Germany, Austria- western striped central
Czech slovak, slovene, hungary, Poland- central striped eastern (or maybe just central)
balkans (eastern/southern)
Greece-just southern maybe.
Baltic states-Eastern striped northern
The rest: Eastern:

You have to agree with me on this. :-) Try drawing it out! Plus Southern France has same colours as Italy and Spain so you cant argue!!

Comments?

Cheers --Burgas00 17:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I've made new maps. I have some doubts about central Europe, from a french point of view we tend to see it as the part of Europe which is geographically between east and west but aslo between north and south (it is generally thought that central Europe are the "closed" countries of Europe, the ones that does not open on mediterranean nor baltic or north seas. That is why I tend to have difficulties to consider Germany as a whole as a central European country. I know that the german concept of "mittle europa" includes it, and in English also. What also bother me is that there are quite important cultural/historical differences between southern Germany+Austria versus northern germany (more roman influence and implantation of catholism). Generally, in France the concept of central Europe is undertood to have an important catholic influence, while northern Europe is seen as having a protestant influence. The same way for Poland, in France, this country is rarely understood as a central European country due to its localisation. It is generally more though as a eastern country or north-eastern; But due to its catholic majority it had historically stronger links to western Europe, like other central/eastern European countries as Tchek republic and Slovaquia. I don't know which definition of central Europe should be shown. My opinion is that the concept of central Europe can overlap with the concept of northern Europe in some cases, folowwing some definitions. For the balt countries I have also some doubts; If we took the definition of northern Europe as the countries under protestant influence Estonia and Lettonia should be included, but not Lithuania. Generally I tend to think that those countries canno't be only grouped with Russia/bielorussia due to the historical links with protestantism and Catholicism. We can discuss it.

Re: above maps

The second of the three last ones is the best one. quite accurate, with mind to language, culture, religion. Dogru144 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with Fab.

According to Fabb, as lorrain, we should now consider ourselves like southern people ?...So, all the industrial history of my region, the geographic proximity and common history with germany, the half-continental climate...were in fact southern and latin features! Well, i don't think so. Just some quotes, because i can't answer to all statements (too long).

"geographically Portugal and Spain are even more in western europe than France"

They are more southern than western. And Sénégal is more in the west...Must we consider it like an occidental country ?

"between France and Germany ?the language is completly different"

between french and spanish too, for numerous french. I understand a bit english, but not at all italian...

"The religious french tradition is catholic"

Not so much. Since the Reformation, France has been catholic only one century (18th century) ; before, France was divided between protestants and catholics (like the others western countries), and after, it has become a secular society (like norther countries). I remind you that dutch are partly catholic, germans are half-catholic (it is an official religion) and flemich are entirely catholic (i don't talk about Poland, Ireland, Lithunia...)

"France is in latin Europe, UK in germanic Europe"

I'm not sure that Bavaria feels culturally very close to Yorkshire.

"Most people in France would consider that it would be completly erroneous..."

Why speaking in the name of french people ? We are not here in a politic campaign, and i think that all opinions are receveible.

"High density part of Europe (around 250-400 hb/km²), while France is among the traditionnaly rural and less dense countries"

Italy's density is about 200/km², Sweden's one is about 20/km².

"France is not pat of the mainly flat regions of Northern Europe"

Norway should be flat ? Scotland should be flat ? Hessen should be flat ? Austria would be flat ? Northern France and western France should be montainous ?

"Southern Europe is much defined with its direct relation with the mediterranean sea, climatically, historically, and culturally"

I agree whith the three last, and this makes France out of southern europe.

"Cultures and civilisations are generally described by their language and their religion"

Right for the language, but only language, not linguistic group. Those two notions are very different. Religion ? Once again, no longer in France ! With this criterion, France is closer to the dutch or the scandinavians.

"4 of the 10 biggest French cities are located directly on the mediterranean sea, and 7 are located on the southern half of the country (so geographically in southern Europe)"

I think you make a mistake for the location of the biggest cities. And the density of population shows a west-east difference, not a north-south one. If some southern cities are growing, it's a recent phenomenon that we share with other western cultures (UK, Germany, USA...), and not with southern ones.

"In which ways UK and France share cultural similarities ?"

History, geography, demography, society, language (norman one), farming, democratic culture, level of life...In general, France shares far more cultural similarities with Germany, Uk or Netherlands than with Italy or Spain. Sorry, but i have the feeling that the similarities that you present are just superficial foreign clichés.

"Europe of wine...Europe of beer"

Wine of beer consumptions have more to see to fashion and economic context than culture. Mesopotamians and Ancien Egyptians consumed beer. Were they nordic ? In the middle age, Germany was entirely inclued in the "Europe of wine". Was it a southern country ? In the 20th century, France had more breweries than Belgium. Today, the beer consumtpion has become higher in Spain or Croatia than in Sweden, and young french drink no more wine. Other times, other mores...

"they are also close to anti-south European discriminatory stereotypes"

No, just historical and cultural realities. In the history of the last centuries, southern europeans were poor, and if they are less poor today, this is because of the european integration. And you're right, in my region, italian immigrants have not been received with flowers...because they appeared culturally very different.

"Madrid, Valladolid, Saragoza, Toledo, Porto...are not situated in mediterranean climate"

Wrong. Those cities are all in a Mediterranean climate or relative. Even the Galician coast has dry and hot summers, and forest fires are frequent (though outside summer, the region remains wet). The coast from Gijon to Bilbao has a southern oceanic climate (mild in winter, hot and wet in summer, like in Basque region).

"Spain's dominant climate is the continental one...and very cold in winter. Spain has oceanic climates...as France do...Northern Italy climate is a very continental one, similar to Germany's climate"

I i believe you, Madrid will be soon as continental as Moscow...Well, i invite you to have a look on the statistics:average T° in Madrid in January is the same as Provence. And the northern italian climate hasn't really common point withe the german's one. In fact, nothing to see between southern and western climates.

"French speaking switzerland (which is...the southern half of switzerland)"

Are you sure that we are talking about the same country ?

"So, i don't see Europe from an Anglo-Saxon point of view."

Me neither, and fore me, France is not southern Europe.

"UK...relatively flat regions"

Interesting exemple...UK is a stepped country, beginning with plains, then hills and ends with a mountainous hinterland. This is the same shema in France and Germany. In contrary, Italy, Greece, Spain or Portugal are all mountainous peninsulas.

"olive oil...and is not an "imported fashion" as it can be in northern Europe"

Olive oil is a recent fashion in France, and was formely only used in mediterranean regions (Provence and Languedoc essentially)

"French countryside was very backwarded comparatively to the industrial centers of northern Europe"

Northern France already belongs to norhtern europe, so i don't understand what you mean.

"this industrialisation was limited to Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Parisian region"

It's incredible to read this! France was industrialised before Germany, and industry has a great place in the heritage of our culture! It has modified society, politic, landscapes, cities, villages, drained millions of farmers out of the countries, brought millions of immigrants from all Europe and from the other continents...We could believe that you want to insult the memory of millions of active or retired workers!

"Gastronomy is derived from italian style of cooking"

I don't understand what you mean...Quiche lorraine, confit de canard, tartiflette, pré salé, crème chantilly, flamiche, bouillabaisse, saucisse de Morteau, palets bretons, choucroute, huîtres d'Oléron, roquefort, boeuf bourguignon, truffade, coquilles St Jacques...THIS should come from italians???!!!!

"Speaking in terms of urbanity, we clearly notice in most of French big cities the dominant southern european model..."

I think it's wrong if you speak about traditionnal architecture. Apart mediterranean ones and some urban districts under roman empire-and only during roman times-, all architecture of french cities and villages has been always the same as northern europe. Since the 18th century, the traditionnal and local forms of urbanity have begun to disappear, and the materials used in france will be the same as in all Europe. But we must admit a northern feature in the half-north of the country. And for the anecdote, southern Europe, had to wait until 2004 to have its own business cluster (Madrid), and there isn't any one in Italy. In northern Europe, they were far older (La Defense, The City or Bankenviertel).

"...quite dense city centers..."

In all european city centers, the densities are high; and contrary to what you seem to say, the german urban areas are often denser than French ones-excepted in region-cities like Hamburg or Berlin, Germans living rather in flats than in houses. Nothing "Germanic" or "catholic" here, just question of avaible place and cost of build...

"I incite you to go to Google earth and compare the equivalent main cities of France, Italy and UK to see what it means"

It's very subjective. And i don't think that german cities look like british ones. Like you have asked, i looked, and i've just realized that many french cities (above all city-centers) remind british or western german ones.

"Most of Italy is more prosperous than French rural regions"

Southern Italy prosperous ? Is it a joke ? And for northern italians, i think thy can thank the european integration. Before the war, they were as poor as their southern brothers.

france is not south europe

this is a 1940 american view, dividing metropolitan france doesn't make sense.

france doesn't regard itself as a south europe country nor the UN.

there is no official source nor valid justification to consider it a (half) south europe country, this is just an american biaised point of view not a fact. Paris By Night 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"France is not south Europe" Ah bon !? Ajaccio est une ville d'Europe du nord donc ? Rome, située à la même latitude doit l'être aussi alors ?

Ce n'est pas un point de vue Américain des années 40. Je suis Français, et je considère la France comme étant globalement plutôt un pays d'Europe du sud. beaucoup de Français perçoivent le pays de cette façon. Au moins partiellement si l'on ne regarde que la pure géographie.

Il est tout de même difficile de résumer la France à Dunquerke !... Ce n'est pas parceque qu'il existe à l'extrême nord de la France une ville située à 40km de l'extrême sud de l'Angleterre que la France n'a soudainement plus rien à voir avec l'Europe du sud.

devrait-on rappeller qu'il existe des villes au nord de l'Italie, qui, comme Bolzano qui sont situées à quelques kilomètres de l'Autriche ou de l'Allemagne. pourquoi n'en tirerait-on pas en conclusion que l'Italie n'est pas un pays d'Europe du sud ?

Il est vrai que la moitié nord de la France n'est pas géographiquement dans le sud de l'Europe - cependant cette ville de l'extreme nord de la France n'est qu'au début de ce que l'on considère généralement comme l'Europe du nord. globalement parlant, et surtout en prenant en compte la culture je ne vois pas de raison fondementale pour ne pas considerer la France comme d'Europe du sud - et ceci est évidement encore plus vrai concernant la moitié sud - qui elle y est clairement sur le plan géographique.

Just a answer to the arguments above :

"Je suis Français, et je considère la France comme étant globalement plutôt un pays d'Europe du sud."

Me too, i'm french, and i don't consider that France shares anything with southern Europe.

"Il est tout de même difficile de résumer la France à Dunquerke !... Ce n'est pas parceque qu'il existe à l'extrême nord de la France une ville située à 40km de l'extrême sud de l'Angleterre que la France n'a soudainement plus rien à voir avec l'Europe du sud."

It is difficult to summarize France to Marseille or Corsica. The fact that a town exists in the far south in the country doesn't mean that France would share suddenly nothing with England or Netherlands.

"cette ville de l'extreme nord de la France n'est qu'au début de ce que l'on considère généralement comme l'Europe du nord."

Who is "on" ????

"globalement parlant, et surtout en prenant en compte la culture je ne vois pas de raison fondementale pour ne pas considerer la France comme d'Europe du sud "

By this way, I don't see either a reason to see France culturally closer to Southern Europe.

Natural separations

Aren't the pyrinees a separation also? --AnY FOUR! 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Toulouse, Marseilles or Nice for exemple, are at north of the pyrinees, but still in southern Europe. most of Italy would be in northern Europe too then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad name

What a load of unencyclopaedic, arbitrary, subjective codswallop. Detractors of the Wikipedia project justifiably seize upon articles such as this one, to highlight the weaknesses of the project. The only section which, in its current state, is at all useful is "Political definition" since it is based on UN definitions. Most of the "discussion" above merely highlights the weaknesses inherent in such an article.

Why not an article on North-western South America next?
--Yumegusa (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, this article does not give wikipedia a bad name. The phrase is used in writing about the culture, politics, economics and society of the two or three parts of Europe(North, South + East).e.g., commonalities in politics, recognized by many academics, see: [1] or [2]. And, moreover, the following: [3].Dogru144 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic "definition" - proposal

Is this anything more than an arbitrary list of states that happen to be in or near the south of Europe, or that speak languages related to others that are spoken in or near the south of Europe?
Is this "Linguistic definition of Southern Europe" 100% WP:OR or is there something it's actually based on?
Is the Semitic language Maltese included simply because it is spoken in a country in the south of Europe, despite the fact it is not a Latin, Greek or Slavic language?
Last time I looked, Belgium was nowhere near the south of Europe, yet it's included simply because it is partly French-speaking. By this logic, Quebec and French Polynesia should also be included.

My proposal is to replace the entire section with a list of the countries of Southern Europe showing their main language(s), grouped linguistically. Is there any argument to the contrary?--Yumegusa (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done that, thereby removing WP:OR and replacing it with a simple tabulation of facts. Any reversion will need to include WP:verifiable citations to wp:reliable sources--Yumegusa (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More data?

If indeed this article is here, then should there not be more information such as demographics, religious affiliations etc? 41.245.167.187 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SWITZERLAND SOUTH OF ALPS IS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE

On the Swiss border of lakes (Lugano and Maggiore) are growing olive trees.

THE ISLAND OF CORSICA TOO IS SOUTHERN EUROPE AND DOES NOT BELONG TO SOUTH FRANCE REGION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC) CYPRUS NOT EVEN COLORED? Cyprus is grey, akin to Africa on this map. Contrast this with green for southern Europe and red for West Asia. Color the north of it with West Asia, as it it occupied by Turkey, and the south green, as its culture and history relate to southern Europe (ancient Greece, Byzantine Greece and Lusignan France).Dogru144 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

France is both an northern and southern european country

I am french and I would like people to understand that northern France is not latin at all !! It is far more germanic than anything else, ask an alsacien from Alsace, ask a Lorrain from Lorraine, or a Franc Comtois if they are latin or if they feel close to Italy or Spain , hell no !! They all speak french but they are different in how they behave. On the other side, southern France is latin , and they have very strong ties with Italy or Spain and ask a marseillais or a niçois if they feels close to Germany or the UK , hell no !!

Southern France represents roughly the Occitanie 1/3 of all french territory, then Aquitaine Languedoc Roussillon, Limousin, Auvergne, Provence Alpes Cotes d' Azur. Lyon is NOT a southern french city, it is wrong nor Grenoble, Saint Etienne, or Poitiers La Rochelle. They are all northern french cities. The three majors french cities are northern french cities, Paris 10 Millions, Lyon 1 Million, and Lille 1 Million. Southern France = Occitanie !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.101.157.234 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Je doute que tu connaisses bien ton pays... bien que tu te dises 'Français'... Tout d'abord la notion 'd'Occitanie' est un neologisme utilisé par de très peu nombreux militants politiques basés principalement vers Toulouse. Il n'existe aucune identité 'occitane', ni culturelle ni historique (je dit celà en tant que Provençal qui ne sent pas plus d'affinités avec le Limousin qu'avec toute autre région Française), il s'agit juste d'un ensemble de régions qui ont pour point commun d'avoir été d'une des langues d'oc à un moment donné. Par ailleurs dire "sud de la France=occitanie" est preuve d'une grande ignorance... ainsi le Roussillon, de langue traditionelle catalane, le pays Basque, la Corse... ne seraient pas dans le sud de la France!!!? alors que le Limousin ou l'Auvergne y seraient.. mais pas Rhône-Alpes ou les Charentes (alors que positionnées dans la moitié sud, avec un climat ou une architecture bien plus méridionales qu'en Auvergne ou Limousin... beaucoup de confusions!

Et dire que toutes les plus grandes villes de France sont dans le nord... Quand en fait parmi les 10 plus grandes agglomérations françaises 7 sont dans la moitié sud!! Après Paris, Lyon (et oui Lyon n'est pas dans le nord, mais bien dans la moitié sud: à la latitude de Venise! par ailleurs l'architecture Lyonnaise est bien méridionale), ensuite vient Marseille (bien devant Lille qui ne doit son importance qu'au fait de compter dans l'agglo des communes Belges!), ensuite Toulouse (plus d'un million), puis Nice (un million aussi), et Bordeaux (pas loin d'un million aussi). N'oublions pas Toulon (10è agglo), Grenoble (latitude de Turin/Gênes), St Etienne (latitude de Milan), Montpellier (latitude de la Toscane), etc. dépassant le demi-million.

Je crois que tu confonds plusieurs choses; le concept =d'occitanie", celui de "midi" et celui de "sud de la France". Par ailleurs tu laisses supposer que toute région ou ville située en dehors du 'midi' ne sont pas dans le sud, et donc seraient dans le nord dde la France (telles Lyon, Grenoble, St Etienne, etc), ces villes ne sont pas dans le concept du "midi", ni de 'l'occitanie' mais sont évidement dans le sud... Comment peut ont dire que Grenoble est une ville du nord alors que situé à quelques kilometres de l'Italie?! PS: si on veut parler de "sud" dans le sens restreitn de 'midi', dans ce cas faisons-le aussi pour le nord... Au sens restreint le 'nord' c'est Lille et ses environs Basta, Paris n'est donc pas dans le nord (d'ailleurs en tant qu'habitant de Paris je sens une bien plus grande difference culturelle quand je vais à Lille que quand je vais à Lyon, toulouse, Nice ou Marseille et je ne me considère pas pas comme du nord de la France, bien que je reconaisse évidement que Paris est dans la moitié Nord.

Paris, par ailleurs, est situé à peu près au mêmes latitudes que Vienne, en Autriche, (en Europe centrale)... c'est franchement pas ce qu'on peut appeler 'l'Europe du nord' (la ligne passant par le centre de gravité de l'Europe passe du coté de la Belgique... pratiquement toute la France est en dessous!) Alors si on prend en compte en plus les caractéristiques culturelles (langue romane, catholicisme, culture 'vin'), la France dans son ensemble est clairement bien plus sud-Européenne que nord-Européenne (langues germaniques, protestantisme, culture 'bière'). Il y a bien sur des régions frontalières de l'Allemagne ou de la Belgique (Alsace, Moselle, Nord-pas-de-Calais), ainsi que la Normandie (Invasions Vikings) qui ont des empruntes nord-Européennes, mais celà ne change pas fondementalement l'identité latine de la France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.194.111.59 (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we know our country as good as you ...Northern France is simply not southern europe for many reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.162.85 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Et dire que toutes les plus grandes villes de France sont dans le nord... Quand en fait parmi les 10 plus grandes agglomérations françaises 7 sont dans la moitié sud!! "

It's a recent phenomenum called "sunbelt". 50 years ago, the biggest cities were in the north and in the East.

"et oui Lyon n'est pas dans le nord, mais bien dans la moitié sud"

Do you really think that the inhabitants of Manchester feel "southern" ? Nevertheless, it's a city located in the half-south of UK.

"l'architecture Lyonnaise est bien méridionale"

Not really. Maybe has there been imitations of italian architecutre in some périods, but Lyon has a very mixed architecture (commie-blocks, haussmannian...), and the medieval town has disapeared.

"(la ligne passant par le centre de gravité de l'Europe passe du coté de la Belgique... pratiquement toute la France est en dessous!)"

If you want to be honest, the line is rather near the 54° parallel (between 72°N in the North cap, and 36°S Gibraltar). So, with your statement, Hamburg, London, Rotterdam...are southern cities ?...

"Alors si on prend en compte en plus les caractéristiques culturelles "

Let's say rather the criteria that you have chosen.

"mais celà ne change pas fondementalement l'identité latine de la France. "

There is no latin identity. It's just a foreign cliché.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.